Hanratty Appeal 2002 Law Issues

[caz]

4) The defence were hardly likely to be able to call on [DNA] evidence, sought by them, that was inconclusive.

6) The Rhyl alibi and all of the non-disclosed evidence must then be considered by the court of appeal and what effect it may have had on the original jury.

I know that the DNA evidence is wrong and it will be 'discredited' next time!

Hi Reg,

You say the DNA evidence was inconclusive, but on a legal footing it was as conclusive as the appeal decided it was. It will take this mythical new appeal of yours to change the current status in law. 'Reg reckons...' is not, happily, how the law works. Sorry.

The defence would soon have called on the DNA evidence and milked it for all it was worth (and forgotten all about the unverified, unconvincing and ultimately inconclusive alibi tales) had it cleared Hanratty and implicated Alphon.

I assume you'd have been happy with that on a legal basis. But on a scientific basis it would have collapsed by now, under the 'Reg reckons...' clause that says the physical evidence was too old, or too open to contamination, and the techniques used at the time too primitive, to produce results that could be anything but inconclusive. Bad luck.

Even if the DNA evidence could be discredited, and all the alibi testimony for the defence submitted again and declared admissible, it would still not prove Hanratty innocent, much less implicate Alphon.

The law might be an ass in a lot of cases, but it's got 'Reg reckons...' beat at this point in time. I don't envy your chances of doing anything about that, especially not via the Jack the Ripper message boards.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sara]

I would like to think that at sometime in the future the reliance of the judge in the final Appeal on inadequate guidance regarding the DNA 'evidence' obtained by a now discredited technique, might lead to a judgement that the conviction is 'unsafe'.

Unfortunately due to the destruction of all the evidence from the trial, this kind of 'Appeal of the Appeal' is not only unlikely to occour, but could never succeed in clearing Hanratty's name, if he was innocent.

It's very tiresome btw of Caz and Vic to keep on repeating that the DNA evidence 'proves' anything (esp in such contemptuous and divisive tones) when it does no such thing. Those people who have made an effort, keeping an open mind, to understand the distinctions in the DNA techniques available (who in the day included neither the judge nor the expert witness for the defence!) are quite clear in their own minds that the DNA evidence as presented to the court, cannot PROVE anything.

It was merely the judge's OPINION that the evidence could be relied on, and he based that on advice given at the time, in 2002, when people understood very little of the technique and esp of its shortcomings, which were not explained to him - least of all by the defence 'expert witness'. As in the trial itself, the defence let Hanratty down badly.

The Appeal judge was not to know then, what we know now, that the PARTICULAR techniques used - I might also say, and used by the PARTICULAR scientists employed - are incapable of proving anything, esp so long after the events, since they cannot be relied on to give a true result. Their interpretation is necessarily purely subjective. It's obvious from the judgement that neither the judge nor the defence expert understood this. There is little excuse now however for people refusing to make the effort to understand it, given recent revealations (and info published even on the web which non-scientists can follow).

It really is a waste of time arguing with people who cannot get this simple fact into their heads. Some DNA techniques are reliable - this technique is not, even with relatively fresh samples kept in a sterile manner.

I'm sorry to bring up the DNA into your thread Reg, but it begs the pivotal question: ie

Could the fact that the judge clearly didn't understand the questionable status of the DNA evidence, permit a fresh Appeal at some point in the future?

I can't answer the legal implications of that misunderstanding; but I'll be very surprised if we ever get another appeal, short of a wholesale discrediting of LCN and those who push the technique (ie both support AND adminster it).

[jimarilyn]

I would like to think that at sometime in the future the reliance of the judge in the final Appeal on inadequate guidance regarding the DNA 'evidence' obtained by a now discredited technique, might lead to a judgement that the conviction is 'unsafe'.

Unfortunately due to the destruction of all the evidence from the trial, this kind of 'Appeal of the Appeal' is not only unlikely to occour, but could never succeed in clearing Hanratty's name, if he was innocent.

It's very tiresome btw of Caz and Vic to keep on repeating that the DNA evidence 'proves' anything (esp in such contemptuous and divisive tones) when it does no such thing. Those people who have made an effort, keeping an open mind, to understand the distinctions in the DNA techniques available (who in the day included neither the judge nor the expert witness for the defence!) are quite clear in their own minds that the DNA evidence as presented to the court, cannot PROVE anything.

It was merely the judge's OPINION that the evidence could be relied on, and he based that on advice given at the time, in 2002, when people understood very little of the technique and esp of its shortcomings, which were not explained to him - least of all by the defence 'expert witness'. As in the trial itself, the defence let Hanratty down badly.

The Appeal judge was not to know then, what we know now, that the PARTICULAR techniques used - I might also say, and used by the PARTICULAR scientists employed - are incapable of proving anything, esp so long after the events, since they cannot be relied on to give a true result. Their interpretation is necessarily purely subjective. It's obvious from the judgement that neither the judge nor the defence expert understood this. There is little excuse now however for people refusing to make the effort to understand it, given recent revealations (and info published even on the web which non-scientists can follow).

It really is a waste of time arguing with people who cannot get this simple fact into their heads. Some DNA techniques are reliable - this technique is not, even with relatively fresh samples kept in a sterile manner.

I'm sorry to bring up the DNA into your thread Reg, but it begs the pivotal question: ie

Could the fact that the judge clearly didn't understand the questionable status of the DNA evidence, permit a fresh Appeal at some point in the future?

I can't answer the legal implications of that misunderstanding; but I'll be very surprised if we ever get another appeal, short of a wholesale discrediting of LCN and those who push the technique (ie both support AND adminster it).

Hi Sara,

An excellently thought out and written post, which I endorse wholeheartedly.
Your clarity (and expression) of thought are very impressive indeed.
The third paragraph in your post speaks volumes.

regards,
James

[Victor]

Hi Sara,

An excellently thought out and written post, which I endorse wholeheartedly.
Your clarity (and expression) of thought are very impressive indeed.
The third paragraph in your post speaks volumes.

regards,
James

Hi James and Sara,

I completely disagree, Sara's post contains no factual evidence to support her wild suppositions, shows no clarity of thought nor expression.

Constant repetition of the mantra "LCN is bad" is futile and unproductive.

The post quoted above is a perfect example of sycophancy, because it contains no factual information and is pure unsupported praise for another poster who has the same opinions. Give me some facts.

For example, taking that highly praised 3rd paragraph...

It's very tiresome btw of Caz and Vic to keep on repeating that the DNA evidence 'proves' anything (esp in such contemptuous and divisive tones) when it does no such thing. Those people who have made an effort, keeping an open mind, to understand the distinctions in the DNA techniques available (who in the day included neither the judge nor the expert witness for the defence!) are quite clear in their own minds that the DNA evidence as presented to the court, cannot PROVE anything.

Why does the DNA evidence not conclusively prove Hanratty's guilt? It is the legal position as per the appeal judgment.
I've made an effort to understand the technique with an open mind, and although the technique isn't perfect, it does work reliably. But you've given yourself the casting vote by claiming sole authority over who has an open mind and who doesn't so will declare everyone who agrees with you is open-minded and fair, and those who disagree with you are closed-minded and biased. Where is your evidence for the judge and expert defence witness not understanding the science?

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

It's very tiresome btw of Caz and Vic to keep on repeating that the DNA evidence 'proves' anything (esp in such contemptuous and divisive tones) when it does no such thing.

Hi Sara,

Please be so good as to direct me to where I 'keep on repeating' this. It was Reg who was trying to use the DNA evidence to 'prove' that Hanratty should go back to being presumed innocent.

I merely think he's still got light years to go on that one, and you appear to agree with me that his efforts are never going to produce another appeal.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that Reg was ever 'keeping an open mind'. He has made it very clear that his belief in Hanratty's innocence and Alphon's guilt will survive all the slings and arrows of mere evidence or a failed appeal.

I'm still keeping an open mind on the subject of Reg's ability to address any of the outstanding questions put to him. And I'll be more than happy to consider any plausible explanations for how Hanratty's DNA found its way innocently onto both hankie and knickers and survived to be positively identified 40 years later, while Alphon's DNA went completely AWOL. Just repeating over and over that this evidence should not have been admissible doesn't explain what they actually found and why, and won't magic those findings away.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

Hanratty's Rhyl alibi is unquestionably an ambush alibi, and today would not be admissible as evidence. It definitely comes under the modern caution which I believe runs something like:-
It may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court

Therefore is it valid and\or legal for any part of the Rhyl alibi to be mentioned as part of the appeal?

This thread seems to have stagnated, so I'll repeat the above question, does anyone know the legal position concerning the Rhyl alibi? Should it carry any weight whatsoever? Is it admissible as evidence?

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

This thread seems to have stagnated, so I'll repeat the above question, does anyone know the legal position concerning the Rhyl alibi? Should it carry any weight whatsoever? Is it admissible as evidence?

KR,
Vic.

Until the enactment of section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 it was possible for the accused to rely on an ambush alibi, that is one to which the Crown has been given insufficient prior warning.

Hanratty was entitled to introduce his new alibi at the eleventh hour, but obviously the prosecution could make the valid point that up until then he had been saying that he had stayed in Liverpool rather than Rhyl.

The present caution to which you refer would cover the situation that when arrested for committing an offence of murder in Bedfordshire the accused maintains his right of silence. When the accused gives his alibi notice saying he was in Rhyl at the time of the commission of the offence, the prosecution and judge could make adverse comment to the effect he could have said that when arrested and cautioned.

In the Hanratty appeal the issue about the Rhyl alibi was whether the prosecution should have given to the defence the statements of three potential witnesses (Margaret Walker, Ivy Vincent, and Christopher Larman) who might have supported the Rhyl alibi. The Court of Appeal thought the prosecution should have made the disclosure, but and I quote from paragraph 201 of the judgement:

"In the circumstances, we do not accept that the failure to disclose such material as the police had in relation to Rhyl would have made any difference to the way in which the trial was conducted."

[SteveS]

In the Hanratty appeal the issue about the Rhyl alibi was whether the prosecution should have given to the defence the statements of three potential witnesses (Margaret Walker, Ivy Vincent, and Christopher Larman) who might have supported the Rhyl alibi. The Court of Appeal thought the prosecution should have made the disclosure, but and I quote from paragraph 201 of the judgement:

<B>

"In the circumstances, we do not accept that the failure to disclose such material as the police had in relation to Rhyl would have made any difference to the way in which the trial was conducted."

</B>

Hi Ron
You make a most excellent point.

Do you think then, that the Court of Appeal usurped the jury in it's role as a court of review as Mansfield pointed out?
I know a retrial cannot take place so in that case a conviction can merely be upheld or quashed. But the appeal court must bear in mind the effect such evidence would have had on the original jury.

Thnx
Steve

[Victor]

But the appeal court must bear in mind the effect such evidence would have had on the original jury.

Hi Steve,

The appeal court surley has to treat both cases equally. The ambush alibi was only permissible until 1967, so was allowed to stand, and as per the rules at the time, the prosecution only had to supply the names of the Rhyl witnesses - which they did.

In effect Hanratty ambushed the defence, but the rules in 1962 permitted that.

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

Hi Ron
You make a most excellent point.

Do you think then, that the Court of Appeal usurped the jury in it's role as a court of review as Mansfield pointed out?
I know a retrial cannot take place so in that case a conviction can merely be upheld or quashed. But the appeal court must bear in mind the effect such evidence would have had on the original jury.

Thnx
Steve

Hello Steve,

As regards the Rhyl witnesses grounds of appeal, I think that the Court of Appeal took the view that if the prosecution had behaved itself, then the defence would have been unlikely to call the witnesses in question. The court did not say what the jury would have decided if it had heard the evidence in question.

As to the other matters, it is impossible to debate the question without mentioning the DNA evidence, this decided the appeal.

In my view the jury must have been so unimpressed with Hanratty that it decided that he could not possibly have been in Rhyl. As Spike Milligan observed, everybody's got to be somewhere, and if he had not been in Rhyl then the only other contender was a Buckinghamshire cornfield and then a Moggie Minor.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was to the effect that this verdict of the jury was safe even though there might have been minor imperfections in the trial process.

[SteveS]

Hello Steve,

As regards the Rhyl witnesses grounds of appeal, I think that the Court of Appeal took the view that if the prosecution had behaved itself, then the defence would have been unlikely to call the witnesses in question. The court did not say what the jury would have decided if it had heard the evidence in question.

As to the other matters, it is impossible to debate the question without mentioning the DNA evidence, this decided the appeal.

In my view the jury must have been so unimpressed with Hanratty that it decided that he could not possibly have been in Rhyl. As Spike Milligan observed, everybody's got to be somewhere, and if he had not been in Rhyl then the only other contender was a Buckinghamshire cornfield and then a Moggie Minor.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was to the effect that this verdict of the jury was safe even though there might have been minor imperfections in the trial process.

Hi Ron

Not sure that the defence would not have called the Rhyl witnesses at trial, if they had known about them in time. They certainly didn't at the first appeal, which is beyond belief, IMHO. What was their to lose at that stage?

I totally agree that the DNA evidence has to weighed too.

Thnx
Steve

[RonIpstone]

Hi Ron

Not sure that the defence would not have called the Rhyl witnesses at trial, if they had known about them in time. They certainly didn't at the first appeal, which is beyond belief, IMHO. What was their to lose at that stage?


Thnx
Steve

Steve, that was part of the Court of Appeal's reasoning (in the second appeal) with regard to the Rhyl alibi, if the Defence did not call the witnesses during the first appeal when they knew about them and when there was nothing to lose, the inference is that they would not have been called during the trial, when a bad witness can scupper the good evidence.

[SteveS]

Steve, that was part of the Court of Appeal's reasoning (in the second appeal) with regard to the Rhyl alibi, if the Defence did not call the witnesses during the first appeal when they knew about them and when there was nothing to lose, the inference is that they would not have been called during the trial, when a bad witness can scupper the good evidence.

Hi Ron
I believe that Kleinmann did a very poor job all round for Hanratty. Mr Larman was not contacted at all about his statement, by anyone, until several years later.
Mr Sherrard could only act on Kleinmanns instructions after all.
Steve